18.2 Public Perception of the ascent Field of Synthetic Biology 379in press coverage of SB in the United States to those in parts of Europe [25]. It
showed that news stories in the United States mentioned more potential
benefits (51%, news coverage from year 2003 to 2008) of SB than potential
risks (44%), while the European presses mentioned more risks (59%, from year
2003 to 2007) than potential benefit (28%).18.2.2 Perception of Synthetic Biology in Europe
18.2.2.1 European Union
The public attitudes toward biotech and the life sciences in Europe have been
assessed by the Eurobarometer surveys. The recent Eurobarometer on this topic
was conducted in 2010 based on representative samples from 32 European coun-
tries [27, 28]. The analysis on the survey showed that the people in Europe were
largely unaware of SB – only 17% of those participated in the survey heard of
SB – which means a low level of awareness. Regarding GE in general, there were
concerns on products, particularly food from the GE technology [28, 29]. Among
these concerns, there were common perceptions that the GE food was probably
unsafe or even harmful; there was also concern on safety due to possible horizon-
tal gene transfer. However, the public attitudes toward novel technology were not
totally negative. The survey showed the public believed that research on biofuels
(an application developed by SB approaches) should be supported. The primary
concern on SB was the information about the possible risk (63%). A majority of
the public would also like to know more about the claimed benefit (52%). Other
concerns were who would benefit and who would bear the risks (40%), scientific
progress in the field (31%), regulation (29%), funding (24%), and societal issues
(16%) [28]. Due to the unawareness of the technology and more enthusiasm for
the novel field, the public considered the regulation of SB should be science
based (left for the scientific experts) but with the necessary oversight from the
authority; however, when ethics and social values were involved, the public
involvement should be included in decision-making [29]. When asking how SB
should be regulated, more than half preferred scientific evidence (52%) over
moral or ethical issues (34%). And the public preferred more expert advices for
the decision about SB (59%) than what the majority (lay people) would think
(29%). A majority (77%) agreed that SB should be tightly regulated by the govern-
ment [28]. Within 2014–2015, the expert committees from European Commission
(EC) conducted three public consultations related to SB, covering issues on the
definition on SB, risk assessment methods and safety aspects, and SB-related
risks to the environment and biodiversity and research priorities [30–32]. The
reports from these public consultations, although the opinions were most likely
from closely related stakeholders in the field, paved way for further dissemina-
tion of SB in Europe.
18.2.2.2 Austria
A study on communicating SB from scientists via the media to the public was
conducted by the Austrian COSY (Communicating Synthetic Biology) project in
2008 [33]. Press releases written by the scientists on their work were reviewed by
four journalists from major Austrian newspapers and magazines. The journalists